Illegitimate children, under Hindu Law, are entitled to maintenance from the joint family properties, irrespective of the mother's status as a dancing-girl.

Kumaraswami Sastri, J.

1. This is a suit by the minor plaintiffs suing by their mother and next friend for maintenance. The case for the plaintiffs is that their mother Chinnammal was, shortly after she attained puberty, kept by the 1st defendant who is a Nattukkottai Chetty continuously and exclusively as his concubine, that the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs are his illegitimate sons and the third plaintiff his illegitimate daughter. Maintenance is claimed at Rs. 500 a month for all the three plaintiffs. The suit was originally filed against the 1st defendant only, but he died pending suit and Defendants 2 to 5, his undivided uncles and uncles sons, have been brought on the record. The 1st defendant filed a written statement denying that the plaintiffs mother Chinnammal was continuously kept by him as concubine from 1901 to 1919. He states that Chinnammal was a dancing-girl who did not abandon her usual mode of life which was that of prostitution and that he used to visit her occasionally. He denies that the plaintiffs are his children by Chinnammal. He denies that he was at any time maintaining the plaintiffs or began neglecting them from July 1919. He admits that demands were made by the plaintiffs mother but denies his liability to maintain them. He denies that any charge can be created on the property mentioned in the plaint. He pleads that he belongs to the Nattukottai Chetty community and is a Vysia and that in any event, the claim for maintenance is excessive and that any maintenance that is granted can only be decreed till the plaintiffs attain majority. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement adopting the written statement of the 1st defendant and pleading in addition that the 1st defendant was a member of a joint undivided Hindu trading family possessed of considerable property, moveable and immovable, that he was not possessed of any separate property, that he died without leaving any issue, that his only son was adopted to his brother during his lifetime, that after the death of the 1st defendant all the family properties vested by survivorship in the other defendants and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief as against the surviving coparceners. Defendants 3, 4, and 5 filed written statements adopting the statement of the 1st and 2nd defendants.

2. The following issues were settled:

1. Was Chinnammal kept continuously or exclusively by the 1st defendant as concubine?

2. Are the plaintiffs children of the 1st defendant by such continuous concubinage?

3. Is the defendant bound to pay any maintenance to the plaintiffs and is the said maintenance a charge on the family property as alleged in the plaint?

4. Is the defendant a Vysia; and if so, are plaintiffs entitled to maintenance beyond the period of their majority?

5. What maintenance, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled to?

3. Chinnammal, the mother of the plaintiffs, belongs to a dancing-girl community. She was brought up by her aunt Bhag-yammal who was dedicated to the temple at Thiruvalangadu. The 1st defendant is a member of an undivided family of Nattukottai Chetties, which family was dharmakartas of the temple at Thiruvalangadu. The 1st defendant was the dharmakarta of the temple along with the Rajah of Kalahasti. Chinnammal, according to the evidence, is now about 33 years old. She attained puberty, when she was 12 or 13 and was dedicated soon afterwards to the temple at Thiruvalangadu. The 1st defendant, who was looking after the duties of the Dharmakarta of the temple at that time was in addition the ijaradar of the place and he began to keep Chinnammal. The evidence, to which I shall refer later on in detail, is that from 1904 to 1919 he was keeping her. He was first visiting her at Thiruvalangadu and he then rented a house in Madras where Chinnammal was kept and where he was visiting her. He subsequently kept her in a house which he had purchased in Iyappa Chetty Street. The 1st defendant bore all her expenses and was paying her moneys in addi